I have always wondered how or why many political parties operate just on the whims and fancies of its nodal leader. The whole party literally literally surrenders itself to the supreme leader and almost deifies him or her.The middle rung leaders appear mostly ornamental. Just to make up the organisational structure or numbers. They are practically devoid any political authority or decision making powers. They exist just to appease their supreme leader and hope for the grace of the leader, and be anointed into some position of perceived authority.
More I look at parties, the only answer that I get is this - such parties survive only because of its supreme leader. The vote is never for the party, it is always for the leader. The second rung leaders just pawns. Non entities. They owe their position to their supreme leader, and his / her whims. This does not mean that these second rung leaders do not enjoy any power. They do. But the authority that they exercise, and the power that is on display, pales in front of their subservient attitude to the supreme leader.
These second rung leader know for sure that substantial portion of votes polled in his favour, isn't actually his. It is for the party. More particularly for the main leader.What else would explain the victory of around thirty seven ADMK in the just concluded Lok Sabha elections? Many people didn't even know the name of the ADMK contestant in their locality. Atleast this is what my limited interactions could conclude. The vote was for Amma. This isn't just specific to Tamil Nadu. I am pretty sure this would have been the trend even in Odisha or Paschim Bengal or a few other states. The same is the case with many of the victories of the BJP Candidates in the Lok Sabha elections. The vote was for Modi.
This brings us to the first issue. How do those supreme leaders become what they are? How do they derive so much power? How is it that they make their next level leaders to accept them unquestionably?
Most of these leaders are extremely assertive. They don't back off from a fight. They are tactful, and yet blunt. They take challenges head on. Surrender isn't a term you would associate with them. Atleast not often. They are strong characters. And they do have some charisma. They are extremely popular among the masses. They realize this, and they also know that the people love prefer such characters to lead them. What is leadership without an ability to reflect or demonstrate your strength? Be it the way you talk or act or deal with your second rung leaders.
With constant "love-hate" relation with the ministers and party members, Amma has kept most of her party leaders on tenterhooks. These ministers know that a misstep would mean falling foul with the leader, and getting pushed into obscurity. The supreme leader pick unknown but trustworthy persons to contest elections, and put them on the pedestal and make them obligated to the grace of the supreme leader forever.
This brings to the second and the main issue of this post. As long as the supreme leader is assertive, good orator, decision maker, a true leader who does not back off from a fight, it will not be a surprise that people around them accept them as the leader. It happens more freely at the Regional Parties than the National Parties. It does surprise me when some very senior leaders look at and hold Rahul Gandhi that way. This is despite Rahul Gandhi very infamously leading the party to its worst ever defeat in the General Elections, overseeing whitewashes in State Assembly Elections and not actually doing or restructuring the party's foundations, which he always speaks of doing.
A small victory or success is credited to the hardwork of Rahul Gandhi, but any failure, small or colossal, is always the collective responsibility. You don't find him when the party finds itself facing critical questions, but always find him at his convenience. The entire failure is covered by saying he didn't officially lead the party when the ads promoting the Congress was infact promoting him. His ability or the lack of it to communicate to the public, is brushed aside by stating that the Government headed by Dr. Manmohan Singh did not do enough to communicate the UPA's welfare schemes to the General Public. And most recently, his refusal to buckle up and lead the Congress in the Parliament, though not surprising, only confirms what people always believed - He does not have a stomach for any fight or debate.
Many Congress Leaders appear to be reasonably smart, and intelligent. You cannot question the intelligence or smartness of people like Shashi Tharoor or Kapil Sibal or Abhishek Singhwi. They are articulate, and are endowed with good intelligence. Except of course, when they defend the indefensible. Even there, their ability to articulate and move around the issue, and give it a totally new twist only demonstrates their smartness in covering up. Though it doesn't sell with everybody, it does to lot of unsuspecting juntaas. I find them to be far more smarter than me, and I don't think I am dumb.
With no real leadership quality on display or ability to articulate thoughts well, what makes Senior Congress Leaders sing paens in praise of Rahul Gandhi? They constantly reiterate that they have full trust in the leadership of Rahul Gandhi. They praise him the same way as the second rung leaders of ADMK praise Amma. What does Rahul Gandhi have that we are not able to see but those smart people manage to see?
There have been days when I wonder if they really mean what they say. I always think of this scene (CLICK HERE) from the movie from Chennai 600028, and I have also wondered if these leaders go home, and in the secrecy and comfort of the four walls, they let themselves loose, and express a different view on their leader. I wouldn't be surprised if they do that. I firmly believe that these leaders would be cursing themselves day in and day out when they are forced to defend and shield Rahul Gandhi. But why do they ever do that? It is obvious that, based on available evidences, Rahul does not have the aura or charisma of a true leader. He may become one in the not so foreseeable future. But I wouldn't be betting on that.
The only plausible reason that I can think of is this. Without a "commonly accepted leader", the Congress is just a big family with multiple groups trying to promote their kith and kin and chamchas. They are probably operating on the lines of the proverbial frogs, that would do all it takes to pull any of their equals down. BJP was that way (Jaitley and Rajnath vs. Advani, Sushma and Joshi), till Modi came along. But the big difference being, Modi's stature was bigger than all of them. But in Congress, except for that surname, Rahul's stature or ability is abysmally lower than the second rung leaders.
And the party cannot regroup itself under a common "true" leader, it is heading for a permanent downfall. And in the decades to come, it could pretty much become one of the pages of Indian history which nobody cares about.
These second rung leader know for sure that substantial portion of votes polled in his favour, isn't actually his. It is for the party. More particularly for the main leader.What else would explain the victory of around thirty seven ADMK in the just concluded Lok Sabha elections? Many people didn't even know the name of the ADMK contestant in their locality. Atleast this is what my limited interactions could conclude. The vote was for Amma. This isn't just specific to Tamil Nadu. I am pretty sure this would have been the trend even in Odisha or Paschim Bengal or a few other states. The same is the case with many of the victories of the BJP Candidates in the Lok Sabha elections. The vote was for Modi.
This brings us to the first issue. How do those supreme leaders become what they are? How do they derive so much power? How is it that they make their next level leaders to accept them unquestionably?
Most of these leaders are extremely assertive. They don't back off from a fight. They are tactful, and yet blunt. They take challenges head on. Surrender isn't a term you would associate with them. Atleast not often. They are strong characters. And they do have some charisma. They are extremely popular among the masses. They realize this, and they also know that the people love prefer such characters to lead them. What is leadership without an ability to reflect or demonstrate your strength? Be it the way you talk or act or deal with your second rung leaders.
With constant "love-hate" relation with the ministers and party members, Amma has kept most of her party leaders on tenterhooks. These ministers know that a misstep would mean falling foul with the leader, and getting pushed into obscurity. The supreme leader pick unknown but trustworthy persons to contest elections, and put them on the pedestal and make them obligated to the grace of the supreme leader forever.
This brings to the second and the main issue of this post. As long as the supreme leader is assertive, good orator, decision maker, a true leader who does not back off from a fight, it will not be a surprise that people around them accept them as the leader. It happens more freely at the Regional Parties than the National Parties. It does surprise me when some very senior leaders look at and hold Rahul Gandhi that way. This is despite Rahul Gandhi very infamously leading the party to its worst ever defeat in the General Elections, overseeing whitewashes in State Assembly Elections and not actually doing or restructuring the party's foundations, which he always speaks of doing.
A small victory or success is credited to the hardwork of Rahul Gandhi, but any failure, small or colossal, is always the collective responsibility. You don't find him when the party finds itself facing critical questions, but always find him at his convenience. The entire failure is covered by saying he didn't officially lead the party when the ads promoting the Congress was infact promoting him. His ability or the lack of it to communicate to the public, is brushed aside by stating that the Government headed by Dr. Manmohan Singh did not do enough to communicate the UPA's welfare schemes to the General Public. And most recently, his refusal to buckle up and lead the Congress in the Parliament, though not surprising, only confirms what people always believed - He does not have a stomach for any fight or debate.
Many Congress Leaders appear to be reasonably smart, and intelligent. You cannot question the intelligence or smartness of people like Shashi Tharoor or Kapil Sibal or Abhishek Singhwi. They are articulate, and are endowed with good intelligence. Except of course, when they defend the indefensible. Even there, their ability to articulate and move around the issue, and give it a totally new twist only demonstrates their smartness in covering up. Though it doesn't sell with everybody, it does to lot of unsuspecting juntaas. I find them to be far more smarter than me, and I don't think I am dumb.
With no real leadership quality on display or ability to articulate thoughts well, what makes Senior Congress Leaders sing paens in praise of Rahul Gandhi? They constantly reiterate that they have full trust in the leadership of Rahul Gandhi. They praise him the same way as the second rung leaders of ADMK praise Amma. What does Rahul Gandhi have that we are not able to see but those smart people manage to see?
There have been days when I wonder if they really mean what they say. I always think of this scene (CLICK HERE) from the movie from Chennai 600028, and I have also wondered if these leaders go home, and in the secrecy and comfort of the four walls, they let themselves loose, and express a different view on their leader. I wouldn't be surprised if they do that. I firmly believe that these leaders would be cursing themselves day in and day out when they are forced to defend and shield Rahul Gandhi. But why do they ever do that? It is obvious that, based on available evidences, Rahul does not have the aura or charisma of a true leader. He may become one in the not so foreseeable future. But I wouldn't be betting on that.
The only plausible reason that I can think of is this. Without a "commonly accepted leader", the Congress is just a big family with multiple groups trying to promote their kith and kin and chamchas. They are probably operating on the lines of the proverbial frogs, that would do all it takes to pull any of their equals down. BJP was that way (Jaitley and Rajnath vs. Advani, Sushma and Joshi), till Modi came along. But the big difference being, Modi's stature was bigger than all of them. But in Congress, except for that surname, Rahul's stature or ability is abysmally lower than the second rung leaders.
And the party cannot regroup itself under a common "true" leader, it is heading for a permanent downfall. And in the decades to come, it could pretty much become one of the pages of Indian history which nobody cares about.
Comments